Originally posted by Mountain Man
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Nunes sues CNN over 'demonstrably false' Ukraine report
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostThe impeachment inquiry started with the Saturday night massacre, when Nixon fired his Attorney general et. al. for not firing the special prosecutor.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by whag View PostWell it’s not like Trump didn’t demand loyalty of Comey, ask him to exonerate Flynn, and then fire him after Comey (way too politely) rebuffed POTUS for such reckless asks. That wasn’t suspicious at all.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostThat's the fake news version at any rate. Trump never demanded Comey's loyalty, and he didn't ask him to exonerate Flynn. What he said was he hoped the FBI would be able to clear Flynn, which even Comey admitted in his public hearing was not an order or even a request even though he said he assumed it was one.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostBut the whole thing was triggered by an actual undeniable incontestable CRIME.Last edited by JimL; 12-06-2019, 09:59 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostSure, but that wasn't the assertion, the assertion by you was that the impeachment started due to that crime, i.e. to the Watergate break-in.. It wasn't. It began in response to Nixon's ordering and then firing of the Attorney General for his refusal to fire the special prosecutor, an act that Trump himself committed. In other words it wasn't in response to the actual crime that the Impeachment inquiry began, it was in response to the presidents obstruction and attempt to cover-up the crime. So, by precedent alone, the ordering of, and the firing of, Jeff Sessions for refusing to carry out that order to fire the special prosecutor, along with the continued obstruction of Congress was reason enough to begin an impeachment inquiry into Trump.
The fact is that the whole Nixon thing can be tied to an actual crime that was undeniable. They didn't have to go looking for a crime, or using their wild imaginations to invent a crime, or have focus groups help them figure out what to call it, or have a session with activist lawyers to try to help them figure out what the Constitution says.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by whag View PostTrump’s hopes for FBI “loyalty” and the clearing of “good man“ Flynn are totally inappropriate in a first meeting with FBI director, and you know it. Trump knew about Comey before that meeting and was testing him. When Comey failed the test, he was fired. It was Trump’s first shot in the foot.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostJust like a liberal to try to slip out on a technicality. If there hadn't been the crime, there would not have been the need for a coverup.
The fact is that the whole Nixon thing can be tied to an actual crime that was undeniable. They didn't have to go looking for a crime, or using their wild imaginations to invent a crime, or have focus groups help them figure out what to call it, or have a session with activist lawyers to try to help them figure out what the Constitution says.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostDoesn't matter
if there was an actual crime prior to the crime of obstruction or not,
the impeachment of Nixon was begun because of the obstruction.
And in Trumps case, obstruction of an investigation into an alleged crime is not only illegal, and highly problematic with respect to the Constitution and the Congressional resposibility to uphold it, but it also implicates the obstructor of having committed a crime.
No account of Richard Nixon glosses over the fact that his downfall began with the actual crime of the break-in. An actual REAL crime, not an alleged one.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostYour way of not admitting you were wrong by trying to change the narrative.
Jim, that's just nutty -- you can't find any account of Nixon's impeachment (attempt) that doesn't start with Watergate.
Because there was an actual crime that was absolutely undeniable.
This is why you have to keep pretending that Nixon's impeachment (attempt) wasn't triggered by an actual crime. A REAL crime. A crime nobody disputes happened, or what it was.
No account of Richard Nixon glosses over the fact that his downfall began with the actual crime of the break-in. An actual REAL crime, not an alleged one.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostThere is an actual crime here as well, a real one, even if you are incapable of admitting to it.
Please continue your echo chamber bubble talk without me.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimLamebrain View PostYep, I believe that "I hope you can let this thing go" were the words Trump put to Comey regarding Flynn. Comey didn't comply and Trump made sure to get rid of him once he realized Comey was a principled man and wouldn't succumb to his pressure. Then he met with the Russians in the oval office where they had a good laugh together; Trump telling them that the pressure with the Russian thing was gone now because he got rid of Comey.RISCH: Thank you. All right. So those three things we now know regarding the active measures, whether the president is under investigation and the collusion between the trump campaign and the Russians. I want to drill right down, as my time is limited, to the most recent dust up regarding allegations that the president of the United States obstructed justice. Boy, you nailed this down on page 5, paragraph 3. You put this in quotes. Words matter. You wrote down the words so we can all have the words in front of us now. There's 28 words now in quotes. It says, quote, I hope -- this is the president speaking — I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is good guy. I hope you can let this go. Now, those are his exact words, is that correct.
COMEY: Correct.
RISCH: You wrote them here and put them in quotes.
COMEY: Correct.
RISCH: Thank you for that. He did not direct you to let it go?
COMEY: Not in his words, no.
RISCH: He did not order you to let it go?
COMEY: Again, those words are not an order.
RISCH: He said, I hope. Now, like me, you probably did hundreds of cases, maybe thousands of cases, charging people with criminal offenses and, of course, you have knowledge of the thousands of cases out there where people have been charged. Do you know of any case where a person has been charged for obstruction of justice or, for that matter, any other criminal offense, where they said or thought they hoped for an outcome?
COMEY: I don't know well enough to answer. The reason I keep saying his words is I took it as a direction.
RISCH: Right.
COMEY: I mean, this is a president of the United States with me alone saying I hope this. I took it as, this is what he wants me to do. I didn't obey that, but that's the way I took it.
RISCH: You may have taken it as a direction but that's not what he said.
COMEY: Correct.
RISCH: He said, I hope.
COMEY: Those are his exact words, correct.
RISCH: You don't know of anyone ever being charged for hoping something, is that a fair statement?
COMEY: I don't as I sit here.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...stimony-239295Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostRISCH: Thank you. All right. So those three things we now know regarding the active measures, whether the president is under investigation and the collusion between the trump campaign and the Russians. I want to drill right down, as my time is limited, to the most recent dust up regarding allegations that the president of the United States obstructed justice. Boy, you nailed this down on page 5, paragraph 3. You put this in quotes. Words matter. You wrote down the words so we can all have the words in front of us now. There's 28 words now in quotes. It says, quote, I hope -- this is the president speaking — I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is good guy. I hope you can let this go. Now, those are his exact words, is that correct.
COMEY: Correct.
RISCH: You wrote them here and put them in quotes.
COMEY: Correct.
RISCH: Thank you for that. He did not direct you to let it go?
COMEY: Not in his words, no.
RISCH: He did not order you to let it go?
COMEY: Again, those words are not an order.
RISCH: He said, I hope. Now, like me, you probably did hundreds of cases, maybe thousands of cases, charging people with criminal offenses and, of course, you have knowledge of the thousands of cases out there where people have been charged. Do you know of any case where a person has been charged for obstruction of justice or, for that matter, any other criminal offense, where they said or thought they hoped for an outcome?
COMEY: I don't know well enough to answer. The reason I keep saying his words is I took it as a direction.
RISCH: Right.
COMEY: I mean, this is a president of the United States with me alone saying I hope this. I took it as, this is what he wants me to do. I didn't obey that, but that's the way I took it.
RISCH: You may have taken it as a direction but that's not what he said.
COMEY: Correct.
RISCH: He said, I hope.
COMEY: Those are his exact words, correct.
RISCH: You don't know of anyone ever being charged for hoping something, is that a fair statement?
COMEY: I don't as I sit here.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...stimony-239295
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostThis is why you have to keep pretending that Nixon's impeachment (attempt) wasn't triggered by an actual crime. A REAL crime. A crime nobody disputes happened, or what it was.
No account of Richard Nixon glosses over the fact that his downfall began with the actual crime of the break-in. An actual REAL crime, not an alleged one.
Contrast that to the Democrat case against Trump based on contradictory hearsay and guesswork.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimLamebrain View PostTrump should have been charged with obstruction of justice right then and there.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
|
16 responses
103 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Today, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
301 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Today, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
109 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
196 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Today, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
84 responses
357 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Today, 11:08 AM
|
Comment